Meier v. Shinseki et al

Filing 32

ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/24/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TERRY L. MEIER,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 13-00189 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER REQUESTING
ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

13

ERIK K. SHINSEKI, et al.

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

In this FTCA action, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The hearing for that motion

17

was postponed until May 9, 2013, pending plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the undersigned judge.

18

This order requests additional briefing from both parties regarding the timeliness of

19

plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff cites the FTCA as the sole basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in

20

this action. Under 28 U.S.C. 2401,

21

24

A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless
it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within
two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within
six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail,
of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was
presented.

25

28 U.S.C. 2401(b) (emphasis added). Our court of appeals has held that the six-month statute of

26

limitations is absolute, cannot be equitably tolled, and a jurisdictional matter: “the six-month

27

statute of limitations in § 2401(b) is jurisdictional and . . . failure to file a claim within that time

28

period deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the doctrines of equitable

22
23

1

estoppel and equitable tolling do not apply.” Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th

2

Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).

3

According to plaintiff, he submitted a claim to the VA on July 5, 2012 (Compl., Exh.13).

4

The VA rejected his claim in a letter dated July 12, 2012 (Compl., Exh. 16). The record shows

5

that plaintiff’s complaint was filed on January 14, 2013, at which point the six-month period

6

appeared to have passed.

7

This order requests additional briefing from both parties as to why this action should not

8

be dismissed in light of Marley. The parties’ responses must address the following questions:

9

(1) can plaintiff’s letter to the VA dated July 5, 2012, be properly construed as an administrative
claim; (2) can the VA’s letter to plaintiff dated July 12, 2012, be properly construed as a final

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

denial of a claim under Section 2401(b); and (3) is July 12, 2012, the proper date to use as the

12

start of the six-month period under Section 2401(b)? Furthermore, in Adams v. United States,

13

our court of appeals held that in order to invoke the FTCA’s statute of limitations, the

14

government “must also strictly comply with § 2401(b)’s requirement that administrative denial

15

letters be sent by certified or registered mail.” 658 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 2011).

16

The parties’ briefs must be limited to five pages, and submitted by NOON, MAY 3, 2013.

17

In light of the hearing scheduled before Judge Jon Tigar on plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the

18

undersigned judge, the Court will defer ruling on the pending motion to dismiss until after the

19

motion to disqualify is adjudicated.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: April 24, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2